how about a timetable for our 'return on success'?

Just did a quick interview on al-Jazeera English about Bush's speech (it's the first time I've been on since Dave Marash left - I miss the big guy, and take his concerns very seriously).    Might as well throw out the main thrust of my reaction here too.  The speech was underwhelming, but at least it did finally bring the President on board with the Afghanistan policy that Obama has been pushing (rightly or wrongly) for the last year.  And it did put an end to the speculation and internal debates as to whether there would be significant troop withdrawals before the next President takes over.  That the answer is no - one brigade, one Marine battalion, and 3,400 support forces do not a significant withdrawal make - says far more about whether we have "won" in Iraq than do a million speeches or Weekly Standard articles.   

It isn't hard to figure out why Bush made that choice.  Bush clearly fears - rightly or wrongly - that a reduction of American military forces would lead to an outbreak of violence which might interfere with the McCain campaign's 'return on success'.   The military commanders, meanwhile, understand all too well the fragility of the current situation in Iraq: the risks of the upcoming 'transition' of the Sons of Iraq program, the conflicts between Iraqi government forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga in Diyala, the intensifying conflicts between the Anbar Salvation Council and the Islamic Party in Anbar, the political stalemate which led to the postponement of the provincial elections, and so on.  They don't want fewer troops at their disposal if they can get away with it because, frankly, why would they if they don't have to?   Bush's refusal to significantly draw down troops as a "return on success" tells you what you need to know about how the decision makers really feel about the amount of "success."   

My favorite moment in the short speech came when Bush came close to adopting the McCain time travel theory of the surge, which gave the surge credit for the Anbar Awakening despite its taking place six months before the additional troops arrived in Iraq.  Bush was more careful than McCain, though, choosing sleight of hand by simply juxtaposing "the tribes in Anbar were growing tired of al Qaida's brutality" with "so last year we sent 4,000 additional Marines to Anbar" so that listeners could draw the wrong conclusion on their own while he maintained plausible deniability.  This is all ridiculous.  The 'surge' may have had a role in helping spread the Awakenings into Baghdad, as Pete Mansoor and others have argued, as the additional troops out on the streets had more opportunites to meet up with 'former insurgents' ready to cut lucrative deals.  But not in Anbar, where the Awakening got underway in September 2006.   Bush might have mentioned that the Sons of Iraq program, the instrument of the transformation he's praising, is on the brink of collapse... but for some odd reason chose not to. 

My second favorite part of the speech is his repeated repetition of the Peter Feaver-ish, focus-group approved phrase "return on success" (because the American people will support a war if they believe they can win).  Which apparently can mean many things, including a politically correct alternative to "withdrawal".  As in, "many of our partners in Iraq are now in a position to 'return on success' as well.  Australia has withdrawn its Battle Group, and the Polish contingent is set to redeploy shortly."  Ah, I'm getting old.. I remember when our coalition-mates were "cutting and running" by withdrawing, I mean, returning on success their troops.    So how about a timetable for our 'return on success'?

Bush's speech gives a very good preview of how Iraq policy would likely proceed under a McCain administration.   A recitation of American successes, grim words of determination, followed by the decision that even though we're winning, this is not the right time for significant troop withdrawals.   No new demands on Iraqi politicians, no wider strategic context, no mention of Iraqi demands for a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.  The McCain-Bush "conditions based" approach virtually guarantees that a reason will always be found to maintain high troop levels... and that this blank check will ensure that Iraqi politicians never see any reason to change their approach. 

Comments

[Derfel64]

Yeah, an excuse can always be found. After all, if the model is Korea one shouldn´t expect democracy to emerge until some 40 years after troops arrived - or by about 2040. And of course troops can be kept there even longer to "counter the Iranian threat" or whatever.

What i disagree or so it seems, is the level of "tensions" that can be found in Iraqi politics. Most of these "simmering conflicts" are just that: they are simmering below and it is relatively rare for them to explode in open or major violence. Even now with the relatively low level of violence, most of it is still the result of fighting between sunni insurgents vs US-Iraqi forces and Sahwas.

So yeah, a conflict that involved, say, a massive Sahwa uprising in response to a widespread Government crackdown could be really the beginning of a new civil war. But as I say, Iraqis don´t want a civil war and most of the factions seem willing to reach a definitive agreement(s), be it formal or informal, and settle the thing withouth major violence. Maliki is the main guy stirring things up.

BTW, reading news reports over the last few weeks there seems to have been an upsurge of shiite militia activity like the one that took place in January-March this year, before Charge of the Knights. Not sure about but what it´s sure is that some level of activity is still ongoing - US soldiers have been killed in Sadr City recently.

[nur al-cubicle]

From Max Havelaar: ->"There is never bad news from Java".

Thank you for your frank assessment, AA!

[truthynesslover]

Gee ya think??Using the troops as props to secure an election?

[Alex]

A recitation of American successes, grim words of determination, followed by the decision that even though we're winning, this is not the right time for significant troop withdrawals.

Very true. But it's not only McCain who will say that, also Obama. I am not Obama-bashing here. It is the essential fact that popular opposition to the occupation is such that the only way that the US can stay in Iraq is by forced military occupation. an eternal situation. So no major troop withdrawals, no "Korea", ever. That is what both McCain or Obama will be faced with. It is not an issue of a McCainite policy.

[bb]

AA

Regarding Anbar:

US military deaths in Anbar Province did not drop dramatically into single figures until OCTOBER 2007.

This was more than 6 MONTHS AFTER 4000 extra marines had been deployed there as part of the surge. It was also AFTER the surge-enabled simultanenous multi-offensives between June and September 2007 on the southern outskirts of Baghdad had broken the back of the insurgency, with the results we see today.

So how does this equate with your continual statements that it was the Awakenings in 2006 that finished the insurgency. Who was it who was killing all those American soldiers in Anbar Province between Oct 06 and Oct 07. if not insurgents?

On Bush: Bush has minimised the withdrawal in his last term to give McCain or Obama maximum political space to minimise the withdrawal in their first term.

It's not very likely that President Obama is going to stick to his "one brigade out a month" routine is it? If he does, against the advice of Petraeous and Odiorno, and things start to go pear shaped, who would be responsible?